Does anyone know what is the legal basis of the charges against him,
besides the manslaughter ones? "Women and children first" is obviously
not only against halacha but also against EU law. And there can surely
be no law (let alone a halacha) that the captain must go down with his
ship. But as captain he presumably has a special duty to oversee the
evacuation of the passengers and crew, and can't abandon that duty in
the middle. I'm also guessing that there are laws dating back to the
old days of shipping, under which crew members may not leave their posts
mid-voyage, which this was.
Now the halacha says that a worker may resign his job even in the middle
of the day; otherwise he'd be a sort of slave. But even there I think
there are restrictions if leaving right at that moment would cause damage
to the baal habayis. E.g. in Australia one of the favourite tactics of
the Builders Labourers Federation used to be to walk off the job during
a concrete pour; if the boss didn't quickly give them whatever they wanted,
the loss would be tremendous. I vaguely recall a halacha that would say
once you've started pouring the concrete you must stay until it's done.
The same might apply in this case.
Also, there's the mitzvah of saving lives and the prohibition of lo
taamod. Even if the captain is no more obligated in these than anyone
else, he is certainly not *less* obligated. At the very least, since
he was on board and was capable of helping, he had a duty to help no
less than that of any passenger with the appropriate training.
Therefore he can be forced to fulfil these mitzvos just as he can be
forced to fulfil any mitzvah, and punished for failing to do so.
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon

> Although the captain of the ship is reviled for abandoning ship, had he
> been Jewish would he have been acting properly? Women and children first
> seems to be contradicted by the din that if a man or a woman are drowning,
> we save the male because he is chayav in more mitzvos. The same hierachy
> would seem to apply for an adult female vs child analysis. Unless there
> is a halachik basis for the captain going down with the ship one could
> argue that the din of "v"chai bahem -- chayechah kodmin" would imply
> that if there are insufficient resources (eg lifeboats) its each man for
> himself and that would apply to the captain and crew as well. Once he
> abandoned ship is there a halachik rationale for ordering the captain
> to return to ship?
> Gary J Schreiber MD
A full discussion would take a volume so I will just mention 4 points.
1. The captain (you're assuming Jewish) may have an implied contract based
on the rule of the sea. (BTW is chayecha kodmin a chiyuv or a reshut is
an interesting question as well) Damages would be an interesting question.
2. Chayav in more mitzvot is certainly the traditional interpretation,
but some poskim seem to understand it as doing more mitzvot (so a frum
women would get precedence over a non frum man)
3. a male child will ultimately be chayav in more mitzvot so might
get priority
4. most (if not every) modern poseik says we ignore the horiyot priorities
today - I have not been able to determine if this is due to practicality
or other reasons
KT
Joel Rich

R' Gary Schreiber suggested:
> Women and children first seems to be contradicted by the din
> that if a man or a woman are drowning, we save the male because
> he is chayav in more mitzvos. The same hierachy would seem to
> apply for an adult female vs child analysis. Unless there is a
> halachik basis for the captain going down with the ship one could
> argue that the din of "v"chai bahem - chayechah kodmin" would
> imply that if there are insufficient resources (eg lifeboats) its
> each man for himself and that would apply to the captain and crew
> as well.
I cannot cite any sources, but it seems to me that the halachos RGS cites
are for ordinary situations, where "all else is being equal", such as where
ordinary passengers are in a lifeboat and the food is running out, or
whatever. It is difficult for me to imagine that it also applies to special
situations, such as that of the captain and crew, who accepted
responsibility for the safety of their passengers.
If I am wrong and RGS is correct, then it seems that his logic would also
apply to soldiers, who would then be allowed to abandon their units and
seek safety under the "chayechah kodmin - each man for himself" rule. That
is obviously not the case, and I really don't see why the halacha would be
different for ships' captains, firefighters, or police officers.
I'm not saying that there aren't situations where we might go leniently on heroes, only that they're not in the "each man for himself" category.
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f183532dc653116058st05vuc

> If I am wrong and RGS is correct, then it seems that his logic would
> also apply to soldiers, who would then be allowed to abandon their units
> and seek safety under the "chayechah kodmin -- each man for himself"
> rule. That is obviously not the case, and I really don't see why the
> halacha would be different for ships' captains, firefighters, or police
> officers.
The laws of law are different for exactly this reason. I have not seen a
halachic analysis of the level of danger a first responder must (vs. is
permitted) to undertake halachically. If anyone is aware of any (I'm
guessing there must be some in artzeinu hakedosha), I'd love to see it.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.

I have long been aware of the commentary of RSRH on the 'dalet lshonot
shel geulah'
which he explains on the basis of the brit bein habetarim to Avraham Avinu.
(Gerut, avdut, and inuy, predicted in the bbh-b, will be removed, in
reverse order,
ayem sham)
I was surpised to recently discover that the Klei Yakar explains this
topic exactly in the way RSRH does.
See
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49295&amp;st=&pgnum=23
This leads me to wonder about the sources of RSRH's commentary on the Torah.
In the halachic portions, RSRH often cites the relevant shitot of the
halachic masters on the halachic topic at hand . In the narrative
sections, he cites the classic biblical commentaries sparingly. Is
there any evidence that RSRH drew on the Klei
Yakar or any other biblical commentary (other than Rashi and the
Ramban) extensively?
Saul Mashbaum

R' ZS:
Does anyone know what is the legal basis of the charges against him,
besides the manslaughter ones? "Women and children first" is obviously
not only against halacha but also against EU law. And there can surely
be no law (let alone a halacha) that the captain must go down with his
ship. But as captain he presumably has a special duty to oversee the
evacuation of the passengers and crew, and can't abandon that duty in
the middle. I'm also guessing that there are laws dating back to the
old days of shipping, under which crew members may not leave their posts
mid-voyage, which this was.
<SNIP>
---------------
KT,
MYG

RMB:
<<I think that in the leshon Tanakh, lashon rabim was limited in use to
smaller numbers. Once the eye saw the quantity as "a lot", it was no
longer rabim.
<snip>
KNLAD, I never heard someone actually teach this as a kelal.>>
There's a slightly more confusing version of this in Gesenius 134:e-i.
David Riceman

On 19/01/2012 11:55 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> using tap water on high floors of apt buildings is prohibited on shabbat
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4175443,00.html
>
> I am bothered what the rabbi just discovered this?
According to the article (and it is Ynet, so it's hardly reliable),
yes, the rabbi just discovered this. He never got the shayla before.
Has there perhaps been a recent increase in the height of buildings
in Bnei Brak? Perhaps a change in the building code, or just
developers pushing the limits because of high demand?
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon

RMB:
<<The concept of shor hamu'ad (BQ) is whether this animal poses a
perpetual danger, or was dangerous once.>>
I was referring to the argument about whether five species can become
"b'nei tarbus" or not (unlike snakes, which everyone agrees can not).
The expression "bnei tarbus" certainly implies self control, and self
control is at least a kissing cousin of bechirah.
David Riceman

aside from the usual religious problems discussed
on this forum, we also have an obligation of kol
yisrael areivim zeh ba ze ....someone mentioned
that aside from katyushka rockets being fired at
israel, we probably have more deaths from israeli's
driving while texting, speeding, smoking, etc,
what responsiblility do we have to have to addre=
ss these problems (if at all??)
?
hmz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120120/cac14751/attachment-0001.htm>

From http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=469
Halacha requires placing a Mechitza (separation)
between men and women in the synagogue; according
to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York,
1895-1986), this requirement constitutes a Torah
obligation. Rabbi Feinstein rules in a number of
his responsa printed in his work "Iggerot Moshe"
that the Mechitza must stand at least eighteen
Tefachim ? or approximately 54 inches ? tall,
such that it reaches the shoulders of an average woman.
Rabbi Feinstein also wrote that a Mechitza should
be present at any gathering attended by men and
women, such as weddings and other social
functions. The prophet Zecharia foresees the
funeral that will be held when Mashiach arrives
for Mashiach Ben Yosef, and he declares, "The
land shall eulogize ? each family by itself: the
family of the house of David by itself, and their
wives by themselves" (Zecharia 12:12). It emerges
from the Talmud's discussion in Masechet Sukka
(52a) that Mechitzot will be erected to separate
the men and women during this funeral. Rabbi
Feinstein notes that if Mechitzot are required to
separate between men and women at the solemn
occasion of a funeral, then we should all the
more so require Mechitzot at more festive social gatherings.
Rabbi Feinstein does, however, make an exception
in cases of a weekly Torah class offered to men
and women, if there is concern that many women
will not attend if a Mechitza is used. In such
instances, Rabbi Feinstein rules, in the interest
of disseminating Torah to as wide an audience as
possible, we may suspend the Mechitza requirement
if otherwise many women would not attend,
provided, of course, that the men and women are seated separately.
Summary: A Mechitza in the synagogue must stand
at least 54 inches tall. A Mechitza should be
used to separate men and women in all social
venues where men and women are in attendance,
such as weddings, funerals and Torah classes. If,
however, there is concern that many women will
not attend a Torah class if a Mechitza is used,
then it is permissible to conduct the class
without a Mechitza, provided that the men and women sit separately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120122/41a976fc/attachment-0001.htm>

Since no one else has done so (surprisingly to me), here is a link to
RGS's discussion of the topic on Hirhurim
<http://torahmusings.com/2012/01/evacuating-a-sinking-ship/>.
He meantions the mishnah in Horios, which has the ranking bsed on
number of chiyuvim and other such factors, as we did here. (For that
matter, could you picture a modern hospital doing triage that way?
Or did we discuss that here already?)
The IM minimizes the role of the mishnah to "if all else is equal".
The Tzitz Eliezer invokes a conflicting beraisa, one which says that if
there is limited money for food, women nd children do go first. The Shach
and the Taz resolve the conflict differently, but the TE invokes this
to pasqen lemaaseh.
RGS concludes:
[I]t would seem that a sinking boat qualifies for R. Feinstein's
example of equal illness but not equal distance. If I understand his
position correctly, he would advocate that evacuation should proceed
according to proximity to lifeboats. In other words, everyone has to
get on line and enter lifeboats in the order of that line. Similarly,
R. Waldenberg would argue that the rules of priority do not apply
and some other rule -- perhaps also first come, first served --
should apply.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964

At 01:23 PM 1/21/2012, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
>I have long been aware of the commentary of RSRH on the 'dalet lshonot
>shel geulah'
>which he explains on the basis of the brit bein habetarim to Avraham Avinu.
>(Gerut, avdut, and inuy, predicted in the bbh-b, will be removed, in
>reverse order, ayem sham)
>I was surpised to recently discover that the Klei Yakar explains this
>topic exactly in the way RSRH does.
>See
>http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49295&amp;st=&pgnum=23
>This leads me to wonder about the sources of RSRH's commentary on the Torah.
>In the halachic portions, RSRH often cites the relevant shitot of the
>halachic masters on the halachic topic at hand. In the narrative
>sections, he cites the classic biblical commentaries sparingly. Is
>there any evidence that RSRH drew on the Klei
>Yakar or any other biblical commentary (other than Rashi and the
>Ramban) extensively?
I will forward your question to Dr. Elliott Bondi, a grandson of Rav
Breuer, who will probably be able to shed light on it. YL
[Email #2. -micha]
As I mentioned earlier, I sent a copy of your message to Dr. Elliott
Bondi, who is a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer, and hence a great,
great grandson of RSRH. He is an expert is the writing of RSRH and
is one of the editors of the Collected Writings of RSRH. He replied
No.
Rav Hirsch cites sources if he drew on them. He did not draw on the
Kli Yakar.
YL

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
> Halacha requires placing a Mechitza (separation) between men and women in
> the synagogue;
>
I have heard that this is a halacha which is dependent on the shul, and not
on the situation (people davening), and as such, there is no obligation to
create a mechitza when creating an impromptu minyan outside of a shul.
Does anyone know what the source is for this?
Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120123/db579945/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 9
*************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."